ThinkingAfield.org

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, a case challenging the state’s prohibition on publishing computer files which can be used for 3D printing firearms.

Originally filed in 2018, the case challenges New Jersey statute which prohibits the publication of computer files containing digital firearms information on the grounds it violates the First Amendment. Other courts have ruled that such computer code is indeed covered under the First Amendment, but the Third Circuit disagreed, creating a circuit split. In March, SAF filed a motion for rehearing with the Third Circuit, which was denied, creating the need to request the Supreme Court hear the case.

“The files at issue in this case are speech, and their publication is as protected as a book about gunsmithing,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As is typical in states like New Jersey, all basic principles of law and civil rights get thrown out the window when it’s related to guns. New Jersey hates the Second Amendment so much that it’s willing to infringe on other rights as collateral damage. Speech about making guns is no different from any other protected speech, and computer files that provide that instruction are no less protected than a textbook full of diagrams and measurements.” Read more

The U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear two cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, and will ultimately decide whether semi-automatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation will file a “friend of the court” brief to argue that semi-automatic bans hurt sportsmen, and asking the court to strike them as unconstitutional.

Major news from the courts: Judges across the country have officially hit the pause button on lawsuits challenging semi-automatic firearm and magazine bans.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision to review Viramontes v. Cook County (IL) and Grant v. Higgins (CT), lower courts are staying active litigation. They are waiting for the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling on whether popular semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s are protected by the Second Amendment.

“Stays are a tool that courts have to conserve judicial resources,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel for Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “The stay allows courts to press pause on the case while other actions that impact the case get resolved. Here they are staying cases until the Supreme Court answers the underlying questions in the case—whether semi-automatic rifles and so-called ‘high-capacity magazines’ are protected by the Second Amendment and why they are protected by the Second Amendment. Once those questions are answered by the Supreme Court, the lower courts won’t have to answer them. They will only have to determine if the bans before them are factually and legally distinguishable from the Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut bans currently before the Supreme Court.”

To ensure the voice of hunters and gun owners is heard at this critical juncture, the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation will be filing an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” brief, explicitly arguing that semi-automatic bans directly harm sportsmen and requesting that the Supreme Court strike them down as unconstitutional.

Here is what these court stays mean for gun owners, sportsmen, and the future of our firearms rights:

Where Firearm and Magazine Ban Lawsuits Stand: Read more